Best Anglican Women Bishops Comment Ever

Now how does this apply in the debate about women’s ministry in the Church? I am (reasonably) chided here for my feeble wishy-washy approach to this matter. But I’m sticking to it. The truth is that I think the Christian church is so essential to civilisation, unselfishness, kindness and justice, as the Embassy of the Kingdom of God on Earth, that I judge the importance of religious issues on that basis. Things which do not seem to me to be crucial for the survival and success of the Christian gospel , even if they trouble me personally, are relegated to the second or third order of importance.

The last thing I want to hear in church is some sort of sectional whining about who gets what job or under what conditions. I want help in discovering how we should live and die, not office politics with added stained-glass windows.

I am, as I keep insisting, very uninterested in theology. My religion can easily be summed up, understood and either rejected or accepted, by anybody who listens to Handel’s ‘Messiah’ , who reads the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and who has seen the great English cathedrals.

My instincts (which oppose needless change) might suggest to me that the campaign for women ministers ( I don’t call them priests) might well have been some sort of egalitarian project designed to strike at the roots of the Church. But, as a favourite (male) parson in my part of the world is fond of saying, the Church of England is a tough old goose. And it has turned this change very much to its advantage. In practice I have found that many women ministers are more persuasive, reverent, thoughtful and devoted, and perhaps less given to fussy fiddling with things best left alone, than many of their male equivalents. It seems plain to me that the Church, short of good clergy as it is, and very short of money, could not have coped without them, and should admit that.

I can’t see why the same thing shouldn’t go for Bishops. If they believe what they preach, and are on fire with the beauty of it, then let them be Bishops.

But I also know that plenty of my fellow-worshippers take other views.

Hitchens then goes on to defend the right of dissenters from this egalitarian innovation to accommodation as a practical matter, and to credit their win in the Synod. More:

To keep him and others like him in his post, the church set aside a small corner where there would be no women ministers. Why not do the same with bishops?

You tell me. But when (as on the BBC programme ‘The Big Questions’ on Sunday, still available on i-player) I found myself facing the champions of change, it rapidly became obvious that they were not interested in having women bishops *as such*. They could have had that years ago. They were interested in having women bishops at all costs, without any conditions or limits, and with no binding concessions to (perhaps) a quarter of Anglicans who, for one reason or another, are deeply unhappy about the idea. Well, as we know from history, if you want unconditional surrender, you condemn yourself to a much longer and crueller war than if you are prepared to make terms.

Always suspect a cause that does not present itself straightforwardly as what it is. It has something to hide. And always mistrust any movement which has universal approval. It is precisely when ‘everyone’ thinks something that the thoughtful person needs to cry out ‘wait!’ and demand time to consider.

Hitchens goes on to point out that the antis who prevailed in the vote did so fair and square, under rules that were put in place after a past debacle. More:

This is the same sort of logical judo-plus-origami which is used to transform kindly, hesitant old sexual conservatives, who wouldn’t ever be cruel to anyone, into foaming, cruel homophobes. It’s not that you have principles different from mine. It’s that you want to *discriminate* against a *minority* (voice rises). After which, of course, you’re not fit for human society.

I strongly encourage you to read the whole thing, especially the way Hitchens ends the essay, which is on a note that all of us engaged in church affairs, whether on the left or on the right, should heed:

But a church is not just a club or society , or a political party, where you can thump and shout your way to success by winning votes, briefing the media and forming factions to drive your opponents out.

If I read Hitchens correctly, the way you win may be as important as whether or not you win. What an excellent essay this is. Thanks to @niall_gooch for the heads-up. If you are at all interested in British conservatism and Church of England matters, you should follow Niall on Twitter.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 27 comments

27 Responses to Best Anglican Women Bishops Comment Ever

Although I have little interest in either British conservatism or in the Church of England, except as foils for humor, and a source of beautiful architecture, I believe Hitchens is exactly right. A church is neither public commerce, nor is it the public square, and the same rules do not eidetically transfer. Some of my best friends insist they could not relate to a woman as pastor, and there is no reason why they should have to.

I do think its funny when those who preach obedience to authority find themselves physically resisting the authority of a duly installed bishop, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have provision to be served by male clergy (and bishops).

“I do think its funny when those who preach obedience to authority find themselves physically resisting the authority of a duly installed bishop, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have provision to be served by male clergy (and bishops).”

But if we are going to recognize personal preference in this issue, then where do we draw the line? If a congregation has a preference to be served by a person of Irish descent should that be granted? What about a congregation that only wants a white priest, or a group that wants to be served by a white bishop?

I assume Hitchens, though discussing previous Church of England tussles over homosexuality, is unfamiliar with them or, more importantly, with recent developments. The “kill the gays bill” in Uganda, vigorously supported by Anglican leaders there (some of whom are now sworn obeisance by U.S. congregations), has passed. Similar legislation is up for consideration in other African countries with strong Anglican support. (Not to be outdone by the Protestants, Pope Benedict just bestowed the red hat to a Nigerian bishop, now cardinal, whose enthusiasm is just as great).

I don’t think Anglican self-understanding is that it is Protestant but dressed up Catholic. Anglicans-rightly or wrongly-don’t believe that the RCC is the only and truly Christian body. There is only one Church, yes, but Apostolic Succession as coming only through the RCC is believed only by Catholics. Anglicans believe that Anglican orders also come through Apostolic Succession. Roman Catholicism is very imposing because of its numbers and influence, but many of us simply don’t see Biblical or historical warrant for believing that the Pope is the vicar of Christ on Earth, nor do we see any warrant for believing there is a universal bishop. It’s hard for many Catholics to believe that some of use actually know Catholic dogma and yet reject it (many Catholic apologists are convinced that if only non-Catholics truly understood Catholic teaching, then dissent would disappear).

I have no problem believing that RC has true sacraments, that RC has Apostolic Succession, etc. What I cannot believe is that the early Church was Roman Catholic, that the early church had a pope (as understood by Catholics, not simply a “papa” or bishop), that the early Church believed in the Immaculate Conception of Mary, that early Church believed in doctrinal development, so on and so forth.

Many Anglicans have fled to Rome, and in many instances I understand why. What I don’t understand is the denseness of many Catholics who simply cannot fathom why a Christian would not want to be Roman Catholic. I would gladly become a Roman Catholic (again) if it could be shown to me plainly that the uniquely Roman Catholic dogmas are not in fact doctrinal deviations and novelties.

The important thing to understand about the Anglicans is that while their theologians will see them has having some relation to Catholic tradition, Anglicanism is historically a Protestant faith and thus Catholic tradition really is not all that important and why they would even reference it is a mystery.

I appreciate your views. I am aware that Anglicans do not see themselves this way. I meant that C of E is totally divorcing Catholicity.

I have pointed out to Anglicans the doctrines they have issues with in the early church, such as Immaculate Conception, the Papacy etc, but we have spent unnecessary time arguing over what the documents “actually” say.

One of the reasons why I will leave this to God alone, to lead people.

Sorry, if I came across as pushy.

I do personally don’t think there would be voting away of scripture and tradition, if there was an an authority to deal with these issues.

RC’s do not see the early church as just being Rome. We are aware of the other centres of Christianity. There are also 23 Eastern churches in union with the Bishop of Rome. It’s not a place, as much as being in union with the successor of Peter.

I hope I didn’t come across as pushy, either. I’ve read widely (and hopefully deeply, as well) much that I sometimes don’t know what I believe. I am sympathetic to your views, but I am not compelled by them. You’re right that some of what constitutes a debate is not as much about what a document is saying, but what it means. If Roman Catholicism is what it claims to be, I would like to believe.

Catholicity has the following distinctive marks. It involves the full sacramental life of the Church, apostolic teaching, the all-male priesthood devoted to purity of life, the authority of Scripture and Holy Tradition, oversight of bishops who are in submission to the Gospel and to one another, the Trinity, the Creed, and reverence for holy things such as Mary and the angels. It will express itself in worship using time-honored liturgies and with music that expresses reverent adoration. It is salt for a bland world. It is beauty to restore the divine image when we become cloaked in ugliness.

Anyone who refers to them as ministers, rather than priests, probably doesn’t really understand the issue and isn’t qualified to give an opinion on whether women should be ordained. That goes for Peter Hitchens, too.

After reading that he’s seriously unconcerned with theology, I had to grit my teeth through the rest of it. I too am predisposed, by nature, to keep things generally the same as they’ve always been – all things being equal. However, the fact is that all things are never equal so I actually do have to do quite a bit of thinking in order to come to an informed opinion. Hitchens seemingly can’t be bothered to come to such an informed opinion one way or the other about the theological merits of women bishops, sadly.

Part of it, is that the word theology conjures up an image of a dour academic discipline, where scholars are sifting through Greek and Latin so they can write 800 page systematic theologies. Theology is, more simply put, the thoughts one has on God, and therefore the thoughts that determine how the church functions and teaches regarding everything from the trinity to the nature of salvation.

By dismissing theology, Hitchens is more in the catagory of many more believers (Americans would call them liberal Christians) who find Christianity great in that it’s a worldview that might match their natural instincts. For some that might mean a predisposition to giving. For others a commitment to justice. For Hitchens it’s a conservative attitude towards change, and a love of great music and majestic architecture. While good things all and peripherally important to the faith (giving to the poor is pretty central to it, but it’s still just one of many pieces), none of these are Christianity. For that you need to read the words of Jesus and Paul and take on their ideas and think how they relate to how one lives. In other words, one has to be theologically serious. Hitchens, sadly, seems to have missed the boat.

Well, as one who was raised in the Liberal Protestant Tradition, (United Church of Christ) it is pretty hard not to see the notions of True Sacraments (as if there can be a False Sacrament) or Apostolic Succession as anything other than an odd combination of balder and dash; amusing in their way, but never to be taken seriously.

Of course what is more amusing the inability of some Roman Catholics to fail to understand how they manage to sound so utterly ridiculous when they talk of these things as if a Protestant would even care. So this whole thing is one at which we who are not part of either communion and cannot imagine a reason why we would want to be, is entertaining, but only entertaining and it will fun to see how it comes out in the end.

The first thing Richard Johnson’s comment brings to mind is that in the era of waves of European immigration, there were in fact Polish Catholic churches, Irish Catholic churches, Italian Catholic churches, Hungarian Catholic churches, etc. etc. etc. There was no “doctrine” separating them, but everyone knew where they would and wouldn’t be welcome. Many of these churches are now filling up with Hispanic congregants. Although I haven’t checked, I wouldn’t doubt that Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Columbians worship in different parishes in some cities.

But the question of ordaining women IS a doctrinal question. I can understand as an intellectual argument that women could be liturgically disqualified for some reason. I don’t share the sense of importance that has for many people, but I can understand it. There was only one of Jesus, so he had to be male, or female, unless he was androgenous (as, in Jewish teaching, the Adam was, before God took one side of the Adam, making a woman, while what was leftover became a man).

I don’t follow that Apostolic Succession has anything to do with it. A male bishop enters the line of Apostolic Succession when hands are laid on him. He isn’t a direct lineal heir, in the genetic sense. So, if hands are laid on a woman be legitimate successors, then she too is in the line of succession.

“Well, as one who was raised in the Liberal Protestant Tradition, (United Church of Christ) it is pretty hard not to see the notions of True Sacraments (as if there can be a False Sacrament) or Apostolic Succession as anything other than an odd combination of balder and dash; amusing in their way, but never to be taken seriously.”

The feeling is mutual: I also never take seriously people raised in the liberal Protestant Tradition who talk about “sacraments” because they usually they have no clue about what the word means.

but Apostolic Succession as coming only through the RCC is believed only by Catholics.

As far as I know, the Roman Catholic Church has never officially cast doubt on the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments.

If a congregation has a preference to be served by a person of Irish descent should that be granted? What about a congregation that only wants a white priest, or a group that wants to be served by a white bishop?

Where does such personal preference catering end?

Well, that’s the problem right there, and that’s the reason we’re going to keep talking past one another. For those who believe in a male-only priesthood, it is not a matter of “personal preference”, it is a serious doctrinal issue.

Would secular liberals accept the characterization of the proposition that, e.g., women should be paid the same as men for doing the same job as a “personal preference”? I doubt it.

A male bishop enters the line of Apostolic Succession when hands are laid on him. He isn’t a direct lineal heir, in the genetic sense. So, if hands are laid on a woman be legitimate successors, then she too is in the line of succession.

That may be the way Anglicans view it; I don’t know. But in Catholicism, Holy Orders is a sacrament, and so sacramental theology comes into play. As I understand it, in Catholic sacramental theology, in order for a sacrament to be conferred validly, three elements — form, matter, and intent — must be valid. “Matter” refers to the physical substance used to confect the sacrament. So, baptism may not validly be performed by pouring motor oil on someone’s head (except perhaps in extremis); the Eucharist may not be validly confected using Oreo cookies and Coca-Cola; marriage may not be validly performed on/by a same-sex couple; and Holy Orders may not validly be conferred on a woman. Invalid matter. No matter how many validly-consecrated bishops lay hands on her. That’s my understanding of the issue from a Catholic perspective, at any rate.

but Apostolic Succession as coming only through the RCC is believed only by Catholics.

As far as I know, the Roman Catholic Church has never officially cast doubt on the validity of Orthodox orders and sacraments.
———————————
Let me be more clear. The RCC teaches that the fullness of the faith subsists in the RCC. Yes, the RCC grants that the Orthodox have Apostolic Succession, but the RCC does not argue that the Orthodox have the fulness of the faith. Further, the RCC claims that it IS the church one finds in the early centuries, so according to Rome Apostolic Succession comes only from Rome. After all, Roman Catholics argue that its the Orthodox who broke away, not the other way around.

“In practice I have found that many women ministers are more persuasive, reverent, thoughtful and devoted, and perhaps less given to fussy fiddling with things best left alone, than many of their male equivalents.” — Mr. Hitchens

That’s nice. However, the prime difficulty remains that the mother of all women ministers … call her Eve … fussy-fiddled mightily with a thing best left alone, from God’s perspective.

Oh I know, I know. I concede fully that she was mightily persuasive with her husband … who himself lacked something considerable and well-grounded, when it came to the reverent, the thoughtful, and the devoted departments. I mean, the rascal wagged the finger at God, rather pointedly, for giving him the gift of Eve when the good times went sour.

Perhaps it’s time to separate the Church of England from supremacy in the Anglican community. If the idea is that other countries can have traditions and practices that are independent from global Anglicanism, like a refusal to have female priests, then why can’t a country that wants them have them, even if that country happens to be the founding member?

You are incorrect. The RCC accepts that the Orthodox are a valid church, with valid sacraments and orders and succession.

1399 The Eastern churches that are not in full communion with the Catholic Church celebrate the Eucharist with great love. “These Churches, although separated from us, yet possess true sacraments, above all – by apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, whereby they are still joined to us in closest intimacy.”

A certain communion in sacris, and so in the Eucharist, “given suitable circumstances and the approval of Church authority, is not merely possible but is encouraged.”

What seperates those of who only christianity from the only source from which it is derived — scripture – whether delivered via a bible or the word of mouth.

It seems rather odd to take counsel on the positions of the church established scripture froman avowed aetheists. While on secular matters Hitchens could be insightful, thought provokingly, dead on and dead wrong —

There are a few things I need to ear from him prior to considering counsel on matters of christian faith:

There is God
Jesus is son, who for reasons beyond me died that I may life, having taken all of my sin unto himself … and that by believiung in him —— eternel forgiveness and life are mine . . .

Having found no such sentiments . . . I say with respect, admiration and sadness, “Rest in peace. I hope our loving God found a way into your heart before you passed.”

AAA: What does Eve have to do with whether women can be priests or bishops? I know, there is a hoary misogynist tradition from the early church, introduced by half-baked Greek and Roman philosopher syncretists, that women were, are and remain the original source of all sin, and even sexual affection for a man’s own wedded wife is something to approach with care and wariness… but unless one subscribes to such nonsense, what DOES Eve have to do with whether a woman can be a priest?

I ask that, recognizing that one may have an internally consistent, rational, liturgical view that women just aren’t what is called for, for this function, and that many women agree. But what does Eve have to do with it?

David J White: I understand that IF a woman is not liturgically appropriate for the role of priest, THEN then it might not be acceptable to include a woman IN the line of Apostolic Succession… but I simply don’t see that the principle of Apostolic Succession is what bars a woman from the priesthood.

I was raised in a church without bishops, and currently belong to a church that has bishops, but for administrative purposes, and has for 150 years accepted women in ministry, so that doctrine did not exclude the church making use of whomever God is pleased to call. God has yet to inform me that my soul is in peril from the influence of female ministry.

The distinction to be made here is minister and ordained priest. I have two titles that say “minister” in two ministries, but I am not an ordained priest.

This is an excerpt from Sister Sarah Bulter’s book, “The Catholic Priesthood and Women.”

“The Church’s constant teaching has been that the priest acts in persona Christi (in the person of Christ). This means he is not only Christ’s “instrument” but also a “sign,” a “sacrament” within a sacrament.

Since Christ was and remains a man, it is fitting that the priest who acts in His place should be a man, for, as St. Thomas says, “sacramental signs represent what they signify by natural resemblance.”

Furthermore, the covenant relationship between Christ and the Church is expressed in Scripture by the “great analogy” of married love: Jesus is the Bridegroom and the Church is His Bride.

This analogy protects the distinction between Christ and the Church as well as highlighting their unity.

The spousal love that was only an analogy in the Old Testament took “concrete historical expression” in the Incarnation when Christ became a man. Now sexual complemen­tarity is “sacramentally significant.”

Why is Apostolic succession significant?

Because this is what Jesus was doing, at the Last Supper when, he said, “This is my body, This is my blood, poured out for you.” He was instituting the priesthood of the new covenant.

Jesus’ death took place once and is in the past. Yet, the fruits of His sacrifice must be applied to every believer past, present and future.

In the book of Revelation, Jesus, who is in heaven, is referred to 29 times as the “Lamb.” The Word of God portrays Jesus as a sacrificial lamb because, as the High Priest of the New Covenant, He is continually offering up the fruits of His Sacrifice. We partake of those fruits when we receive the Eucharist at Mass

Certainly, Savia, that’s a logical exposition, with the integrity of being internally consistent. If you believe it, I have no reason to suggest you abandon it. It may be true, for all I know.

We, on the other hand, believe that Jesus Christ IS our high priest, while all those who lead worship and preach the gospel are ministers. Also, communion means no more and no less to me than “This do in remembrance of me.” Oh, and our ministers ARE ordained, by one process or another.

I recall a minister (who has recently been elected a bishop as a matter of fact), recounting that a member of the congregation had been reading Old Testament passages about First Fruits Offerings, and thought they should give their own First Fruits to said pastor, in cash. The pastor replied, I am not your priest, we have only one High Priest, you should give your offerings to his church.

As to the significance of marital love, when dealing with Old Testament matters, I take a Talmudic scholar as the primary expert, not an ex post facto Christian reiteration. The significance of marital love is that it reunites the Adam, the image of God, who was divided into Ish and Isha, man and woman.